Sometimes I wonder if South Carolina has ever received any positive media attention. It seems as though my great state is in the news constantly – for all the wrong things.

In the movie Borat, featuring Sacha Baron Cohen, the racist and misogynistic students in the RV came straight from a frat house at the University of South Carolina (the school I currently attend). And when a picture surfaced of Olympian Michael Phelps smoking marijuana, we learned the party took place on–you guessed it–that same campus. Only in South Carolina can a state legislative body unanimously pass a measure creating a state-sponsored “I Believe” license plate with a superimposed cross on it to the exclusion of other options and faiths. And when Obama’s stimulus plan passed in Congress, my governor, Mark Sanford, garnered national media attention for refusing the funds unless he could use them for what he deemed appropriate. He was later forced by the State Supreme Court to take the money. Meanwhile, in my hometown of Aiken County, over one hundred teachers were laid off and the International Baccalaureate Program in my district’s high schools was jeopardized because of state budget constraints. Need I say more?

Unfortunately, I am forced to say more today. Once again, my state is in the national spot light because of our governor’s Argentinian escapade. Sanford, in all his hypocrisy, has added yet another stain on the edifice of our already tainted reputation as a state. It makes me wonder just how much worse it could possibly get for South Carolina when a supposed family man with “good Christian values,” a powerful spot as chairman of the Republican Governor’s Association, and a shot at the 2012 Republican nomination can stoop so low.

Read the rest of this entry &raquo

(Crossposted at FriendlyAtheist)

Unless you’re living under a rock you’ve no doubt heard that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford was not hiking, but had in fact sneaked off to visit a woman in Argentina. Also at issue is that he seems to have lied to his staff and his family about his whereabouts. In a press conference yesterday, he opened up about the whole thing. I really wanted to feel sorry for him… But he managed to offend me anyway. I can’t find a full transcript yet, but the video on MSNBC starts when he’s saying:

“I guess where I’m going with this is that there are moral absolutes, and that God’s law indeed is there to protect you from yourself. And there are consequences if you breach that. This press conference is a consequence.”

You broke a vow you made to your wife and your actions have hurt her. That’s not contrary to God’s law, it’s contrary to human decency.

According to Steve Benen at Washington Monthly,

The governor proceeded to apologize, in order, to:

* his wife

* his four boys

* his staff

* his constituents

* his friends

* his in-laws

* people of faith in South Carolina and nationwide

Why a special apology to people of faith? Why do they deserve an apology but the rest of us don’t?

I’m not offended that he didn’t apologize to me – I think his marital problems are something he needs to work out with his family. No, I’m offended that he felt nontheists didn’t deserve an apology while people of faith did.

Nontheists care about compassion, we care about honesty, and we care about integrity. If you let down people of faith by failing to uphold those values, then you let us down as well.

Is the burqa a religious sign or a symbol of enslavement?

It’s both—and neither. In fact, the burqa is a culturally and religiously loaded Rorschach test. What might be the epitome of religious expression to one person might only symbolize systemic misogyny to another. That’s simply the way symbols work—an otherwise valueless object becomes laden with meaning based on the personal and cultural perspective of the observer. And attempts to qualify a symbol as being definitely one thing over another reveals much more about the observer than it does about the object itself.

So, what then has been revealed about French President Nicolas Sarkozy?

Yesterday, while addressing the French Parliament at the Palace of Versailles (the first time a president has done so since Bonaparte—in other words, a big deal), Sarkozy laid out his vision of France’s future—and that vision emphatically excluded the burqa. Sarkozy railed against the Islamic garment, denying any religious aspect to the clothing:

The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue. It is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity. The burqa is not a religious sign. It is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission, of women….I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.

It’s true that the burqa can be seen as a symbol of female oppression insofar as Islam can be seen as oppressive of women. Most Islamic theocracies are not very generous when it comes to granting women equal rights to men (then again, most theocracies are not very generous when it comes to granting rights in general). But it’s also true that plenty of Muslim women—including many Muslim women who live in the Western world—simply see the burqa only as an expression of their faith and don’t feel subjugated at all, thank you very much.

So Sarkozy is being disingenuous when he says that the burqa is a question of freedom and women’s dignity. It is that—but it’s not only that. The problem is that, deep down, Sarkozy—and much of the French populous—sees the burqa not as a symbol of religion nor as a symbol of female subjugation, but as a latent third option: a symbol of immigration.

In fact, France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Western Europe, ranging about five million. Signs that integration is failing, leading to an increasingly insular, radical—and sometimes violent—immigrant community, has stoked fear among the French. (And may also explain the rise of the far-right nationalist Front National party that recently won three seats in the European Parliament). It also doesn’t help the situation that France has a particularly stagnant economy and too few jobs to go around.

So really, Sarkosy and others’ problem with the burqa is that it signifies to them a failure of this troubled immigrant population to integrate. Consider that a much better way to combat the oppression of women—Sarkosy’s ostensible goal—would be to open more shelters for battered wives, or to ramp up prosecution of those who commit rape. Combating the woes of women’s fashion might conceivably be included somewhere on an actionable list—but it’s absurd to count it as the top priority, and should regardless not be a concern of the government.

If Sarkosy is serious about doing something to aid Muslim women—and the French populous in general—he should focus primarily on liberalizing the economy and creating new jobs, which will do more to bring Muslim women into the Western fold than banning an article of clothing ever could. Going after the burqa—a vital aspect of many Muslim women’s faith—will only be counter-productive by serving to further radicalize a population that probably feels vilified enough. It would be a shame for all involved if French Muslim women came to see the burqa as another sign of oppression—not by religion but by their government.

Faith Complex, a production of Georgetown University, recently released an interview covering the history and role of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

When Bill Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996, there was a small provision known as charitable choice embedded in the law. In essence, charitable choice makes federal grant money available to religious groups so long as the money is used purely for secular purposes. Despite safeguards eliminating the most flagrant violations of the separation of church and state, charitable choice proves to be one big can of worms.

Let’s make up a hypothetical group, Buddhists for a Greater Jacksonville (BGJ), to help illuminate the problems with charitable choice. BGJ raises one million dollars a year, and spends $750,000 sheltering homeless and $250,000 spreading Buddhism. They then apply for a grant through Health and Human Services and receive a $500,000 annual grant to expand and continue the shelter. They do so and spend a million on their shelter. But, because BGJ now has an income of 1.5 million, they can spend $500,000 spreading Buddhism. So what does this mean? That the government has indirectly supported proselytizing.

Charitable choice does have benefits. In rural places, such as small-town Texas, the only organization in town may very well be the local church. In such a case, it makes a lot of sense for the church to send a person to check on that elderly man at the end of the dirt road. Charitable choice makes that possible.

To aid groups such as the local church in small-town Texas, then-Governor Bush set up an office to direct these groups to the correct grant making authorities. When he came to the White House he did the same; and soon after, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was born.

During Barack Obama’s campaign for President, Obama pledged to expand and strengthen the office. After his inauguration he did just that and renamed it The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. While Bush’s faith-based office was rather weak, Obama’s is to serve as a policy advisory council.

The role of the faith-based office is somewhat ambiguous, insipid, and inane. The office is charged with supporting responsible parenting and fostering interfaith dialogue, whatever. Oh, and decreasing demand for abortions… what?!? The office, with its attached advisory council, is one of several offices within the White House charged with creating a consensus policy decreasing the need for abortion across America.

Having a faith-based advisor in the abortion debate is a little troubling, but I understand the practical efficacy of it; to reach a consensus you must have those who object at the table. More troubling, however, is something our hypothetical group BGJ can, and has been able to, do since the dawn of charitable choice. When hiring employees to manage their federally subsidized shelter, BGJ can discriminate on the basis of religion, an unheard of precedent. Obama will neither endorse nor change the policy of discrimination, instead he claims issues will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In real terms, case-by-case basis means unless someone objects discrimination is kosher. I object. Thoughts?

Recently, the American Humanist Association received an interesting email from ABC’s Wife Swap casting producer, soliciting families for the show:

Wife Swap is a reality television show in which two families swap wives for a period of two weeks. The two families are often very different in their rules, lifestyles, values, belief systems and statuses. In the first half of the stay, the swapped wife conforms to the rules of the family she is with and the second half she is allowed to instill the rules and values from her household upon the family. At the end, the couples meet and discuss their time together. The show often evokes interesting scenarios and culture clashes among the transplanted family members, which may end with the parties learning, reflecting and growing from the experience.

ABC is “currently casting its fifth season and looking for unique families with plenty of personality to take part in the show. Specifically, we’re looking for parents who take on philosophical ways of thinking and reasoning when it comes to living their lives, raising their children and navigating the world around them. If yours is a unique family that is constantly seeking out the meaning of truth and existence (among other things) and using these tools to raise your kids, we want to hear from you! Families who participate in this documentary-style program are given a unique opportunity to share their beliefs and lifestyles with another family. It is truly a once in a lifetime experience that can be life-changing for everyone. Please feel free to pass this posting along to any families who are interested in learning more!”

To apply or get information about the show, you may contact:

Danielle Gervais (Casting Producer)

Call: 646-747-7956

Email: Casting.DanielleGervais@gmail.com or Danielle.Gervais@castingrdf.com

A potentially great way to draw attention to humanist values.

In January 2008 Jose Padilla sued John Yoo for $1. Padilla is a U.S. citizen who was incarcerated and tortured while the government challenged his right to Habeas corpus and he wants one freakin’ dollar. The notion that Padilla thinks one dollar will compensate for a round in the star chamber of U.S. counterterroism is a dead giveaway; he has something bigger in mind.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White issued a ruling refusing to dismiss Padilla’s $1 civil suit, thereby clearing the way for it to move to discovery. Yoo and the Department of Justice must turn over a host of internal information to Padilla and his lawyers. Not only will all sorts of new evidence come out but if the ruling stands, the door is open to other Bush administration officials facing personal liability for their actions in office. It won’t be long before there is a million dollar suit against Jay Bybee.

White took a historic step, but not an unprecedented one. Since the 1940’s people have been able to sue the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. There is no legislation authorizing suits of federal employees; however in Bivens vs. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971) the Supreme Court held one can sue public officials as a means of protecting one’s rights.

A few weeks ago the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Haskell County, Oklahoma’s display of a Ten Commandments monument on its courthouse lawn violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because a “reasonable observer would find that [the facts of the case] tended to strongly reflect a government endorsement of religion.” So far, so good.

The 48-page decision is consistent with the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence relating to display of permanent religious monuments on public property.

As a church-state separation fanatic, I take issue with the Court’s opinion that “The Ten Commandments have a secular significance that government may acknowledge.” Unfortunately, the appellate court relied on Chief Justice Rehnquist’s plurality opinion in Van Orden v. Perry (2005) in which the “secular” purposes given by Rehnquist were as bogus then as they are now.

I would have preferred the court to have more heavily relied on the 1980 case of Stone v. Graham, in which the Supreme Court said:

The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. The Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact. The Commandments do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, such as honoring one’s parents, killing or murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, and covetousness. Rather, the first part of the Commandments concerns the religious duties of believers: worshipping the Lord God alone, avoiding idolatry, not using the Lord’s name in vain, and observing the Sabbath Day.

In my humble legal opinion, the courts should declare “Commandments” monuments presumptively unconstitutional as their public display serves absolutely no legitimate secular purpose.

At least we can be thankful that the Tenth Circuit knocked out one more Commandments monument.

(Crossposted at Friendly Atheist)

Is religion the primary source of people’s moral judgments?

It looks like a nation’s culture plays a larger role than religion itself. David Hume had an interesting post on SecularRight.org last week examining data from the World Values Survey on abortion opinions between religions and between religions within a country:

All things equal there was an international tendency for Catholics to be somewhat more anti-abortion than non-Catholics, but a far better predictor of attitudes was not religion but nationality. In other words Catholic Germans resembled Protestant Germans while Catholic Chileans resembled Protestant Chileans.

But what about religion and irreligion more generally on the international level? That is, do religious and irreligious people within a nation tend to correlate in their attitudes toward abortion? Do atheists in Germany resemble religious people in Germany more than they do atheists in Nigeria?

Lo and behond, atheists in Germany DO resemble religious people in Germany more than they do atheists in Nigeria.

It turns out that there’s huge variability between nations’ views on abortion, and it’s a better predictor than religion. To put it another way: If religion were the primary source of moral judgments, the best way to guess an individual’s views on abortion would be to know that person’s religion. But country is more closely tied – it’s more helpful to know what country the person is from than his religion.

Hume doesn’t include the trendline’s equation in his blog post, but he was helpful enough to include the raw data, which I used to create my own scatterplot:

Here’s an explanation of what you’re looking at:

Each data point is one country. Its horizontal position is what percent of the religious population in that country said abortion is never justified. The country’s vertical position is what percent of the NON-religious population said abortion is never justified. The red line is what we would expect if religion had no effect on people’s opinion. If a country is below the red line (as almost all are), then its religious population is more opposed to abortion than the non-religious population.

On average, those who identify as religious in a country are 13.2% more likely than the non-religious to say that abortion is never acceptable.

What should we take away from this? Well, as always, correlation is not the same as causation. Religious individuals are more likely to interact with their community, which could shape their opinions. People opposed to abortion could be more likely to seek out religious groups.

I suspect that these are true, but it also seems likely that religion does influence opinion. If you believe that a god spoke out against homosexuality, you’ll be more likely to oppose gay relationships.

… It’s just not the biggest influence. Secular society has a culture of its own, one with a huge impact on views. I’d bet it even influences how people interpret their scripture. People might claim to derive moral values from a holy book, but it looks much more as if they get their views largely from society and then skew them a bit based on their book.

What do you get from the data?

After reading a transcript of Obama’s speech in Cairo, I’ll admit that my reaction was mostly positive but tempered by a couple points. There were some very good messages of tolerance, shared values, and coexistence. But there was a good deal of focus on how believers in the three monotheistic traditions could come together – often leaving out the nontheistic community.

For example:

And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

So close – if not for three words I would love it. I certainly don’t share an aspiration to love a god, and yet I consider myself a member of humanity.

Or when Obama said:

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations.

Not only does he frame it as an effort to bring together the monotheistic traditions, he uses King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue as an example. Does anybody besides me remember how offensive that initiative was? Here’s how King Abdullah characterized his goal:

“If God wills it, we will then meet with our brothers from other religions, including those of the Torah and the Gospel to come up with ways to safeguard humanity,” he added. The king, who is the guardian of the holy sites of Mecca and Medina, said the major faiths shared a desire to combat “the disintegration of the family and the rise of atheism in the world”.

According to the official Saudi Press Agency King Abdullah said “I have noticed that the family system has weakened and that atheism has increased. That is an unacceptable behavior to all religions, to the Koran, the Torah and the Bible. We ask God to save humanity. There is a lack of ethics, loyalty and sincerity for our religions and humanity.”

That’s the example he gives?

I don’t mean to misrepresent the speech – there were passages on our shared ethical values that sounded downright humanistic. I would have loved it if Obama had taken the next step and explicitly mentioned nontheists as sharing in those values.

Should I just ignore the problematic passages? What did you think of the speech?

(Crossposted at Friendly Atheist)

This was a fascinating and eye-opening chart from a Gallup survey May 29th:

There are other findings on the site, but the implications are consistent: when people spend time around gays or lesbians, they’re more comfortable around them and more willing to support their rights.

Need I go on? I’m sure you see the parallels.

This is why things like the Out Campaign are so important. We need to let people get to know us as nontheists so they can see firsthand that we’re not immoral cannibals; we’re pretty much like them.

In college at UNC, our club set up a table in the middle of campus and had a sign “Meet an Atheist”. The reaction was friendly but curious – you would be amazed at how many people had questions about our worldview. I think my favorite question is still “What do you guys think of the devil?” We explained that we didn’t believe in the devil, either. He nodded thoughtfully before walking off.

It’s difficult to demonize an entire group of people when you know one of them personally.  If you’re comfortable doing it – or perhaps only mildy uncomfortable with the idea – make yourself known as a nontheist!

In the aftermath of the tragic assassination of Dr. George Tiller, we need to remember what is at stake in the debate over abortion. Indeed, we don’t need to use our imaginations to envision what our nation would be like without legalized abortion; we only need to look at countries like Tanzania, where women suffer and die from policies that religious fanatics are trying to impose in our own country right now. The New York Times reports (h/t to Hullabaloo):

Abortion is illegal in Tanzania (except to save the mother’s life or health), so women and girls turn to amateurs, who may dose them with herbs or other concoctions, pummel their bellies or insert objects vaginally. Infections, bleeding and punctures of the uterus or bowel can result, and can be fatal. Doctors treating women after these bungled attempts sometimes have no choice but to remove the uterus.

Pregnancy and childbirth are among the greatest dangers that women face in Africa, which has the world’s highest rates of maternal mortality — at least 100 times those in developed countries. Abortion accounts for a significant part of the death toll.

Maternal mortality is high in Tanzania: for every 100,000 births, 950 women die. In the United States, the figure is 11, and it is even lower in other developed countries. But Tanzania’s record is neither the best nor the worst in Africa. Many other countries have similar statistics; quite a few do better and a handful do markedly worse.

Even more stunning is the effect that backroom abortions have on maternal mortality around the world:

Worldwide, there are 19 million unsafe abortions a year, and they kill 70,000 women (accounting for 13 percent of maternal deaths), mostly in poor countries like Tanzania where abortion is illegal, according to the World Health Organization. More than two million women a year suffer serious complications. According to Unicef, unsafe abortions cause 4 percent of deaths among pregnant women in Africa, 6 percent in Asia and 12 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Is it clear now what we’re talking about when we talk about choice? Is it clear now that when we talk about access to safe and legal abortion, we’re talking about saving tens of thousands of lives and preventing millions of hospitalizations and crippling aftereffects every year?

Keeping abortion outlawed does not actually reduce the number of abortions; rather, it reduces the safety of those performed. The Guttmacher Institute reports:

Legal restrictions on abortion do not affect its incidence. For example, the abortion rate is 29 [per 1,000 women aged 15–44] in Africa, where abortion is illegal in many circumstances in most countries, and it is 28 [per 1,000 women aged 15–44] in Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds. The lowest rates in the world are in Western and Northern Europe, where abortion is accessible with few restrictions.

Where abortion is legal and permitted on broad grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is illegal in many circumstances, it is often unsafe. For example, in South Africa, the incidence of infection resulting from abortion decreased by 52% after the abortion law was liberalized in 1996.

The anti-choice movement won’t paint this picture for you, but this is what they’re advocating: a world where women do not have legal rights over their own bodies and are injured or die due to lack of access to safe and legal abortion. It is a horrifying vision, but it’s one that some anti-choice people are willing to kill for. The best response to the terror waged by Dr. Tiller’s murderer and the hatred of the anti-choice movement is to rededicate ourselves to expanding access to safe and legal reproductive health services and ensure that clinics receive the support and security that they need to operate safely. And we need to ensure that freedom of choice in the United States rests on more than Supreme Court rulings by codifying a right to reproductive choice into law.